Why would they? What validation do we have of the commercially available video game against the real world? None. Can't say one way or the other.mep wrote:Well do they not match reality?
The underlined. Anyone knows how does the RF does this? I have been looking a while ago to the files where the mods are defined and there are a lot of aspects of the racing cars that are stored (chasis and tyres properties). It looks like probably the model may be not that far away than a costly chasis sim.joncho wrote: As far as I read in other parts of the forum, the post rig tests is not with constant amplitude, it vary the amplitude depending of the frequency, so that would an inconvenience for my rfactor test, and also is that I dont know in depth the ecuations of the simulator and so it makes me doubt.
I compromise here to spend time to achieve this. A model in matlab (with Belatti help ) with all rfactor numbers like spring and damper of the car and the tires and FFT graphicJersey Tom wrote:Why would they? What validation do we have of the commercially available video game against the real world? None. Can't say one way or the other.mep wrote:Well do they not match reality?
Without disagreeing with either JT or Greg, & admitting I have never used pwelch, a quick look suggests that is the kind of thing I would expect to have to do to obtain good frequency domain estimates*. Scaling issues can be overcome by computing frequency response functions, assuming that you have both an "input" & an "output" and you can replicate the same process with your model results.fasteddiev wrote:So I am producing FFT plots in MATLAB using the pwelch method.
Frequency_interval = acquisition_rate/N. Hence you can increase N, as Greg suggests, or decimate the data (reducing the acquisition rate). However, I expect you really need more data, since the variance error is proportional to the number of independent transforms, & increasing N or decimating a fixed length of data simply increases the variance error.fasteddiev wrote:It is giving me OK frequency results but not enough resolution...
Would appreciate more information about your plots. e.g. What are the "magnitudes" shown (position, load, acceleration?), and where was the data gathered (track tests or rig tests). Do you know the natural frequencies of your model? Plotting on a white background might be helpful, to me at any rate.fasteddiev wrote:I was looking to get correlation between the body and hub modes between real and simulated data and I think there is fairly good correlation, given the bump profiling is produced within the simulation software. I am trying to rectify the body mode excitation levels but the hub mode looks correct for the car.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests